Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicky.
I genuinely would not mind someone who is homeless sheltering in my shed. I don't know if I am odd on that or not.
When I was younger I (possibly foolishly, but luckily nothing went wrong) befriended some homeless guy and let him use my bath and that and my spare room for the night. I know I could have woken up and everything was gone but this didn't happen. He actually ended up being my lodger for a while, as once he actually had an address he managed to get a job..oddly enough, employers aren't too keen on employing homeless people. Obviously though, now with the kids I couldn't have random strangers staying here 
I know my father in law lets homeless people sleep in the sheltered bit just outside his house too...theres kind of an alcove thing thats big enough to shelter maybe 4 people in the rain. They haven't used it as much mind recently, but in bad weather there are always some people sheltering there, day and night. They are so grateful to him for not looking at them like something on the bottom of his shoe or something, and if hes actually in making sandwiches and that he will make them something too..thats when hes not at work mind. In return, they have saved him fortunes because they will tell him/chase off any randomers trying to break into his work van when its parked, and stuff like that. He was getting robbed every few months at one stage and he cannot realistically empty it all of the time as there is nowhere to put the equipment when its not out on gigs as it takes up so much space. So he was just taking the hit each time, while the police ummed and ahhed about if they would actually bother to do anything, which always came down firmly on no 
Also tbh I don't really get this 'if you wouldn't let homeless people into your house you can have no empathy!!!'  kind of attitude. |
Yeah, I would love to open my doors to someone like that. I've known family members to do the same and there are people who only just need short-term help and an address. It's hard for me to talk to anyone and not feel some sort of empathy. If I were single, I could maybe see myself taking someone in, but even then... it's not like that person is taking in a dog and giving it feed and water. It's a living breathing human-being, with issues, with likely needs, etc... and "low maintenance" isn't exactly part of human nature, but particularly not part of our culture... so when we take someone in, it may be someone who is all take take take... but even if not, it's still a person who has their own history and their own "baggage", and so it's not a simple thing like here's some food and shelter... we're in a sense rehabilitating a person from the ground up, and if that person doing the giving is an empathic person by nature, then it's very difficult to take that on without taking it
all on so to speak without having good advice with dealing with that sort of living situation... that's why I give to the churches nearby that help to shelter them, they have a network of people who help also with counseling to help with drug assistance if there's an addiction issue... things that a typical homeowner wouldn't have the resources, connections, etc to be able to achieve... but yeah, having an address is the first step... we have a lot of properties here with secondary buildings (101a, 101b, etc), and sometimes people will "rent" or "lend" those out to someone in need... that I think is ideal if those peopel can manage separate separate spaces somehow, but that situation is not for everyone as you said...
The other part of that is if we take someone in randomly, we have no idea what "stage" they're in... if they're even prepared to get situated, so to speak.
Anyway, I just see it as a balancing act... we can't be too accomodating, because then we enable the issue. On the other hand, we can't also neglect the rest of the population to care for people who legitimately have no desire to get off the streets (and that is a problem in itself).
I had a great uncle that passed away many years ago, from assault (disagreement at a bar). Anyway, he was transient and my grandmother took him in... but no matter how much we tried to ground him, he would go back to his old ways. There were kids in the home, so it could only go on for so long before he had to move on, but we all felt bad we couldn't take him in permanently... even though it wasn't on any of his siblings what happened, we had other family members that couldn't be grounded. That was just their way... a lot of my family members are stubborn like this, and it makes both people very miserable to try to reason and shove their view of life onto the other...
Society as-it-is may work for most people, but it doesn't work for all, for any variety of reasons... but this is still the best civilization has ever had it. So makes no sense to inconvenience every one else for just a few... but I'm alright with individual establishments opening their doors to folk as Mokka mentioned, giving out free food.. they do a lot of that here. There are restaurants in this area where the food bank will go by and pick up left-overs... so it's not like there are not places for these folk to go. There is definitely a need.
I do not agree with a broad stroke approach with govt, bannings, particularly welfare expansion etc, because it influences the market(s) adversely and makes poverty cyclical. I think giving works better and individual needs are better met when the charity is on a one-on-one basis, either an individual, a business or an organization reaching out directly. It's more personable and there is more "giving" in the psychological/emotional sense as well, not just the financial giving tailored to whatever numbers the beaurocratic magicians come up with to "resolve" the problem.. it also doesn't account for "failure", i.e., when money just goes into someone who either isn't genuinely needed or is not the best use for it (like someone who is trading food for cash, etc).. When we pass laws on the other hand to encourage the problem, we're not really doing anything about it... we're more or less just giving society a nice permission slip to ignore the issue and just let the politicians handle it. I don't agree with that either... so balance is necessary in both these areas I think.
Anyway, as the question was phrased... I voted against a "ban", because banning anti-homeless benches won't end homelessness... it's just another emotional barrier imo.